Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
Except it may continue to grow well beyond 2100.
Yes, it will continue to grow. That is the point. It will continue to grow because the population is living longer and subsequently gets older. Short of killing them at the age of 70, the only other option is to balance it by importing more youth.
France's problems are France's own. The ironic thing is that some of the worst riots in France were by non-Westeren immigrants.
If that is able to start mass protests, imagine what could happen after a more serious social upheaval.

This is beside the point. There is an upper limit on resources that no amount of trade can circumvent. The greater the global population, the closer you are to this limit.

If you free up some space in a country, it is likely to indirectly encourage more reproduction, since conditions are less harsh now than they would have been if none had emigrated.

If people either did not or could not emigrate, the local population would reach the ceiling that it can not pass sooner. This would give a lower global population as well, since the populations of the other countries had already reached their maximum values, even without resource shortages. With the emigration from the surplus countries to the other countries, the populations in all countries can grow in parallel towards the global ceiling.
This is so full of fail I don't know where to begin.

We're so far off a hypothetical global limit that it is absurd to even contemplate it.

In the next part you mix up economic conditions of an area and food production. I'm not going to bother responding.

We cannot expect that non-Western immigrants will have an ideal ratio of nurses among them (or even that their nurse education is immediately applicable here); which can in turn lead to a further increase in unemployment.
I never said it would be ideal. The point is that there are jobs refugees could do, some right away, some with a little training, some with more training. They wouldn't be a perpetual drain.

So in other words, drastic changes in the ethnic composition of certain European countries is set to continue if non-Western immigrants keep getting accepted at current rates.
The first part is correct. Ethnic composition has never been a static category. Just look at the ethnic composition of Europe 200 years ago, 500 years ago, a 1000 years and 2000 years ago.

It has nothing to do with refugees, though. It will happen, even if you never accept a single Muslim ever again.

I'd rather turn the challenge around: how many perpetrators of Islamist terrorist attacks in Europe did not have European citizenship? Off the top of my head, I can only think of the Madrid train bombings as a possible example.

As for second generation immigrants becoming terrorists: as an example, 3 out of 4 of the suicide bombers of the 2005 London attacks were born in England:



I am not aware of any third generation terrorists yet, but I suspect it is only a matter of time (if I haven't simply missed any such individuals).
That is irrelevant and nonsensical. Let's say all of them, a 100%. Now you've got a result, what you're gonna do with it? Deduce that a 100% of Muslims in Europe are terrorist?

Congratulations, you're now a proud owner of a piece of information that is completely accurate and useless at the same time.

Man, Greyblades is starting to make more sense than you.